McCain seeks closer look at tanker deal

[salin]

McCain seeks closer look at tanker deal

By Katherine Pfleger
Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain yesterday prodded the Pentagon's inspector general to look into more aspects of Boeing's tanker deal with the Air Force, part of a continued campaign to block the $22 billion deal he considers corporate welfare.
He's also asking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to turn over volumes of information about how the novel arrangement allowing the Air Force to lease a fleet of 100 Boeing-made 767 tankers came together.

In releasing about 100 pages of documents yesterday, McCain further illuminated how Boeing officials helped draft the legislation authorizing the deal — not entirely unusual in Congress — and he continued to sketch out the months of negotiations that followed its passage.

In a letter to the Pentagon's Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, McCain, R-Ariz., expanded on allegations he's already made suggesting Boeing and the Air Force may have improperly cooperated to close the deal.

McCain is asking investigators to consider whether Boeing helped the Air Force outline requirements for a new fleet of airborne refueling aircraft. "Its conduct might have constituted an organizational conflict of interest or anti-competitive behavior," McCain wrote.

He also wants the investigation to look into whether the Air Force wrongly dismissed another tanker-leasing proposal from a Florida company, or improperly helped Boeing compete for the deal.

much more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001725945_tanker12.html

[leesa]

1. What...didn't he get his cut?

[blm]

2. Good deal, McCain.

He knows this is a handout. The Defense Dept. is being used by the politicians like an ATM for the defense industry.

[Parche]

3. US AirForce

They do need the tankers to replace the very old and aging KC-135's
but they should buy them outright, or there are hundreds of good
used airplanes in the desert waiting for someone to fly them

[northzax]

4. it was a done deal

and not a bad thing, imho. once boeing lost the JSF to Lockheed, they needed something to keep the company's military division afloat. in the long run, it is better to have two companies making aircraft for the military that one.

[Noordam]

5. Buy the fucking tankers do not lease them

shit.

[KeepItReal]

7. Boeing has plenty of military stuff to keep them in business

RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter
F-22 Fighter
V-22 Osprey
etc...
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Boeing_military/Aero22.htm

This tanker lease boondoggle is the "Fleecing of America" in living color.

The Air Force can retro-fit the existing tankers (think B-52s) or *buy* new ones for cheaper.

Boeing is just trying to move 767s by any means necessary.

[salin]

8. but anti-competitive behavior is never a good thing

which is what sounds like happened re an alternative proposal from airbus. Plus if Airbus was in the mix - doesn't that suggest that there are at least three companies making aircraft (or poised to) for the military?

[frylock]

6. i think jello biafra touches on this..

on his 'Machine Gun in the Clown's Hand' disc. I'll listen again when I get home from work, but I believe Jello claims they intended to transport oil (possibly from ANWR)to China with these planes? A must listen.